Julia Gillard testifies at TURC: Next up Elvis Presley and Big Foot
Julia Gillard was in the Trade Union Royal Commission today and Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks was there to watch the former prime minister bash the counsel assisting all over the park without her even raising a sweat.
TONY ABBOTT’S Royal Commission into Trade Unions was supposed to be about two things, the vindication of Kathy Jackson and the persecution of Julia Gillard.
However just like Tony Abbott's first Budget, these two objectives have both turned into monumental public failures.
We have already seen Kathy Jackson land face first after falling off
the pedestal she built for herself. Jackson spent the year prior to the
Commission smelling like roses and, now the media have caught up with
what Jackson has called the “blogosphere”, she is smelling more like
what those roses may be fertilised with. Jackson is still to face
questions on the evidence she sought to have suppressed, which is
expected to be bigger than that which has already been made public.
Yesterday, it was time for Julia Gillard to face the tough questions.
Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar SC ignored their involvement in the
HSU and their relationship with Kathy Jackson to instead decided to
focus on their dealings approximately a quarter of a century ago with
Julia Gillard.
Stoljar clearly went out to try to show a pattern of behaviour from
Gillard in relation to the setting up of associations for questionable
purposes — however those efforts failed.
It turns out that Gillard had participated in what were seemingly
boring routine conversations regarding industrial affairs with two union
officials — Elliott and Darveniza.
On social media much was made out of the witnesses appearing vague.
However, the finer details of a conversation or meeting on what would
have been routine affairs for union officials such as fundraising and
industrial matters would tend to become vaguer as the years roll on, I
would imagine — particularly when one's memory may be impacted by
multiple sclerosis, as Darveniza's statement confirms.
Soon enough, it was time for the main event and Julia Gillard took the stand.
Gillard testified about her current work status, her background with
Slater and Gordon and how she came to meet her former partner Bruce
Wilson.
Wilson had asked Gillard’s legal advice on the setting up of an
incorporated association for him and his team, as he was seeking to
become secretary of the AWU in WA. Giving advice in this regards was a
common practice for Slater and Gordon. Gillard testified that the law
firm’s major source of work was plaintiff personal injury work. It was
common for work to be done with no charge for unions so that the firm
may pick up personal injury work from the union’s members.
there on in, the questioning up until lunch was all about goings on of
the association, the invoices they sent, the members it had, and the
bank account details and transactions.
As Gillard was forced to point out on numerous occasions — she gave
legal advice on the setting up of the association, she had nothing more
to do with it and no idea about the inner workings of the association.
This sounds to me not only feasible, but highly likely. For those on
social media who chose to make more out of this than defies logic, I
would use this analogy. Just because the green grocer advises you what
vegetables are in season does not mean 20 years later he can explain to a
court what you cooked them with.
The other aim of counsel assisting, in my opinion, was to extract the
“I don’t recall” answer from Gillard as many times as possible, so as
to make her testimony seem less reliable.
This was done by asking ridiculously minute details of conversations
that may or may not have taken place two decades ago, or mundane details
of what sections of an act were used to form part of legal advice, and
where the witnessing of documents took place and who was in attendance
at the time. Questions that, given the passage of time involved, would
be almost impossible to give exact answers on.
Gillard eventually gave a response that resulted in cheers and laughs in the media room:
“My evidence is that I was a busy solicitor across the years in
which I practised as a lawyer. I would have witnessed thousands of
documents. I do not have specific recall of, you know, each and every
document I witnessed and the circumstances, you know, which room, which
desk, what I was wearing. I don’t have that kind of recall, but I
witnessed documents appropriately.”
This led to this question from Stoljar, which resulted in an answer
from Gillard that caused a roar of laughter from those in the media
room:
"What about your practice in respect of dating a particular document? Did you have any practice in that regard?"
Replied Gillard:
"You put the right date on a document."
However, it was the blunt tone of Gillard’s response that put Stoljar
in his place and highlighted the disrespect and desperation in the line
of questioning.
Gillard also stated that the work done on this matter would have
taken between three and five hours, and that, in her time at Slater and
Gordon, she had done far more substantial work than that for no charge.
There was heavy questioning on the subject of an advertisement that
appeared in the printed media regarding the association and its
incorporation. The placement of this advertisement is a legal
requirement in the setting up an incorporated association.
Stoljar seemed to be determined to have Gillard admit that she wrote
and placed the advertisement, despite Gillard stating under oath that
she did not have anything to do with it.
The counsel assisting fired many questions at her regarding this ad,
yet appeared to have absolutely no evidence on which to base his line of
questioning. The best he could use to lend credibility to this theory
was to say the ad was written in what looked like legal terms.
The repetitive questioning and the desperate attempts to trip Gillard
up on the matter eventually, after what seemed like an eternity, ended
with an interjection from Commissioner Dyson Heydon.
Heydon pointed out the likelihood that it was a standard advert placed
by someone else with the details of the association's name changed to
suit.
This simple logic had been lost on those in the right-wing commentary business leading the witch-hunt until now.
After lunch, Gillard was asked questions on several matters that
involved the payment of accounts and billing regarding work done for the
association.
Those who have sought to trash Gillard’s reputation may have been shocked upon finding out that a law firm the size of Slater and Gordon
had a separate accounts department and the solicitors that worked there
did not have to perform every task relating to their clients.
(Allegations that Slater and Gordon have a separate mail room were
not explored and talk of the solicitors taking turns to act as the
receptionist are rumoured to be highly exaggerated.)
When it came to the renovations it has been alleged were paid for by
Wilson using funds from the association there was simply nothing to back
up these allegations. Gillard testified that she had the work done and
paid for with cheques and had receipts for the work.
At one stage Gillard mentioned she had invoices and Stoljar leapt at
the chance to bring Gillard crashing down. Stoljar started with rapid
fire questions around these invoices, stating that Gillard had not
mentioned having invoices in her statements, as if to accuse her of
withholding evidence. Stoljar clearly had the taste of blood was going
for the jugular — until, sadly, once again the facts got in the way.
Commissioner Heydon interrupted Stoljar to point out where in her affidavit Gillard had, in fact, stated she had invoices.
In the end, Gillard finished the day having faced all of the allegations against her and shooting them all down in flames.
There will always be those out there that believe Elvis Presley is
still alive and that Bigfoot exists, just as I’m sure there will be
those out there that believe Julia Gillard is guilty of something.
However, just as the public would not like to see vast amounts of
taxpayer funds spent hunting mythical creatures and dead celebrities,
the vast majority of the public are dismayed to see so much money wasted
on a baseless attack from a bunch of sexist commentators and
politicians on our first female Prime Minister.
It is about time this travesty ended.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
No comments:
Post a Comment